No abstract

Shewhart control charts for dispersion adjusted for parameter estimationGoedhart, R.; da Silva, M.M.; Schoonhoven, M.; Epprecht, E.K.; Chakraborti, S.; Does, R.J.M.M.; Veiga , A. General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. ABSTRACTSeveral recent studies have shown that the number of Phase I samples required for a Phase II control chart with estimated parameters to perform properly may be prohibitively high. Looking for a more practical alternative, adjusting the control limits has been considered in the literature. We consider this problem for the classic Shewhart charts for process dispersion under normality and present an analytical method to determine the adjusted control limits. Furthermore, we examine the performance of the resulting chart at signaling increases in the process dispersion. The proposed adjustment ensures that a minimum in-control performance of the control chart is guaranteed with a specified probability. This performance is indicated in terms of the false alarm rate or, equivalently, the in-control average run length. We also discuss the tradeoff between the in-control and out-of-control performance. Since our adjustment is based on exact analytical derivations, the recently suggested bootstrap method is no longer necessary. A real-life example is provided in order to illustrate the proposed methodology.

No abstract

When designing control charts the in‐control parameters are unknown, so the control limits have to be estimated using a Phase I reference sample. To evaluate the in‐control performance of control charts in the monitoring phase (Phase II), two performance indicators are most commonly used: the average run length (ARL) or the false alarm rate (FAR). However, these quantities will vary across practitioners due to the use of different reference samples in Phase I. This variation is small only for very large amounts of Phase I data, even when the actual distribution of the data is known. In practice, we do not know the distribution of the data, and it has to be estimated, along with its parameters. This means that we have to deal with model error when parametric models are used and stochastic error because we have to estimate the parameters. With these issues in mind, choices have to be made in order to control the performance of control charts. In this paper, we discuss some results with respect to the in‐control guaranteed conditional performance of control charts with estimated parameters for parametric and nonparametric methods. We focus on Shewhart, exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA), and cumulative sum (CUSUM) control charts for monitoring the mean when parameters are estimated.

[CEU burst] Objective: The objective is evaluation of a traditionally designed operating room using simulation of various surgical workflows. Background:A literature search showed that there is no evidence for an optimal operating room layout regarding the position and size of an ultraclean ventilation (UCV) canopy with a separate preparation room for laying out instruments and in which patients are induced in the operating room itself. Neither was literature found reporting on process simulation being used for this application. Many technical guidelines and designs have mainly evolved over time, and there is no evidence on whether the proposed measures are also effective for the optimization of the layout for workflows. Methods:The study was conducted by applying observational techniques to simulated typical surgical procedures. Process simulations which included complete surgical teams and equipment required for the intervention were carried out for four typical interventions. Four observers used a form to record conflicts with the clean area boundaries and the height of the supply bridge. Preferences for particular layouts were discussed with the surgical team after each simulated procedure. Results:We established that a clean area measuring 3 x 3 meters and a supply bridge height of 2.05 meters was satisfactory for most situations, provided a movable operation table is used. The only cases in which conflicts with the supply bridge were observed were during the use of a surgical robot (Da Vinci) and a surgical microscope. During multiple trauma interventions, bottlenecks regarding the dimensions of the clean area will probably arise. Conclusions:The process simulation of four typical interventions has led to significantly different operating room layouts than were arrived at through the traditional design process.

In this paper we derive correction factors for Shewhart control charts that monitor individual observations as well as subgroup averages. In practice, the distribution parameters of the process characteristic of interest are unknown and, therefore, have to be estimated. A well-known performance measure within Statistical Process Monitoring is the expectation of the average run length (ARL), defined as the unconditional ARL. A practitioner may want to design a control chart such that, in the in-control situation, it has a certain expected ARL. However, accurate correction factors that lead to such an unconditional ARL are not yet available. We derive correction factors that guarantee a certain unconditional in-control ARL. We use approximations to derive the factors and show their accuracy and the performance of the control charts -based on the new factors -in out-of-control situations. We also evaluate the variation between the ARLs of the individually estimated control charts.

Because the in-control distribution and parameters are generally unknown, control limits have to be estimated using a Phase I reference sample. Because different practitioners obtain different samples, their control limit estimates will vary and, consequently, also their control chart performance. We propose the use of nonparametric tolerance intervals in statistical process monitoring to guarantee a minimum control chart performance with a prespecified probability. We evaluate the performance of the proposed limits for various distributions and sample sizes. Note that this nonparametric setup includes control charts for location and dispersion. Moreover, we compare the performance with other existing methods involving data transformations and a bootstrap procedure. It turns out that the use of nonparametric tolerance intervals performs very well in statistical process monitoring, especially when moderately large sample sizes are available in Phase I.

Because of digitalization, many organizations possess large datasets. Furthermore, measurement data are often not normally distributed. However, when samples are sufficiently large, the central limit theorem may be used for the sample means. In this article, we evaluate the use of the central limit theorem for various distributions and sample sizes, as well as its effects on the performance of a Shewhart control chart for these large non‐normally distributed datasets. To this end, we use the sample means as individual observations and a Shewhart control chart for individual observations to monitor processes. We study the unconditional performance, expressed as the expectation of the in‐control average run length (ARL), as well as the conditional performance, expressed as the probability that the control chart based on estimated parameters will have a lower in‐control ARL than a specified desired in‐control ARL. We use recently developed factors to correct the control limits to obtain a specified conditional or unconditional in‐control performance. The results in this paper indicate that the control chart should be applied with caution, even with large sample sizes.